An ongoing investigation of the United Kingdom’s role in the invasion of Iraq has opened a window into the backstage maneuvers of the governments leading up to the war. A great many documents are now available for inspection and testimony of leading UK politicians are exposing flawed justifications for the attack on a sovereign nation.
International legal scholars have long held that the invasion was not justified under international law and was in fact contrary to international law and the UN charter. The Bush administration rejected this position and repeatedly attempted to force the UN to sanction its strike on Iraq. Seeking allies for its intended course of action the administration resorted to a massive dis-information program to cloak illegality in a fog of known false claims.
The British inquiry has discovered that legal opinions in the UK also concluded that such action was illegal and based on false claims. Political pressure was brought to bear on both the intelligence and legal establishment to support Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to side with the Bush administration. Bush and Blair attempted to coerce a justifying resolution from the UN Security Council but failed.
During the Cold War both America and the Soviet Union generated proxy coups to overthrow sovereign governments. Direct foreign invasions to effect regime changes however have been acknowledge as illegal since WW II. No matter how odious and onerous a Saddam Hussein may be no state has the unilateral authority to dispose him. This appears an objective of invasion as Gordon Brown (current Prime Minister) states the attacked lacked plans for reconstruction that would allow Iraq to recover.
Whatever the outcome of the inquiry its ramifications will resonate through international affairs. While America is a founding member of the UN and its world court, America has repeatedly opted out of their jurisdiction. Using Nuremberg findings over half a century ago member states have generated a body of laws governing interactions between states. Although a number of cases have appeared before the world court on these laws, there is now precedent for abrogation of those laws. Eventually the international community will decide on matters of law and justice.
It is unlikely that the UK inquiry or any future American investigation will produce any immediate clarity or implement international reforms. Ultimately however shredded documents and “lost” computer drives documentation will become available. The proliferation of copy machines and electronic mail has resulted in most records surviving political efforts to rewrite a politically acceptable history. A future change in the international power structure may decide that compliance to international law is important to all states and punish past transgressions.
When it was in its interest America established the precedent that there is no statue of limitations on crimes committed during modern warfare.
NOTE: During his testimony Blair admitted that Saddam’s WMD program and links to al-Qaida were non-existent. However, he continues to argue that the war was justified because Saddam could not be trusted. Blair, now serves as peace envoy to the Middle East, stated that Iran now poses a similar danger of WMD and terrorism. The question is whether Blair has the credibility to drive the UK into another invasion?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Not to smart 011910
With the collapse of the Soviet Union came the end of the cold war. American neo-conservatives saw this as a great military victory and developed a new international strategy. This strategy concluded that the United States was so powerful that it could dictate to the world, which had no option but to obey.
The truth however was that the Soviet collapse was not the result of an American military victory but rather the collapse of Soviet central planning economic model. One that failed to adapt to a new generation of Russians demanding their piece of the pie.
In 2003 political scientist Joseph Nye coined the term “Smart Power” as a counter to advocates of Soft Power and Hard Power. A country’s soft power includes its culture; values and policies, however it depends on the perceptions of other states that the culture and values are attractive and policies are consistently and legitimate. Hard power is more easily understood as overwhelming force applied freely. Smart power requires intuitive analysis of issues and alternative courses, which assist policy makers to align tactics with objectives for more effective strategies.
Bush, ‘the younger’, and his entourage counted regiments concluding that the American strategy should only be applications of hard power. In the wake of 911 the United States had the opportunity to achieve most of its international objectives through smart power. Instead the Bush administration unilaterally deployed hard power while demanding other states get on board or become targets. Oil producers and religions were already on the target list. European and Asian states were insulted, cooperation and support dried up and the administration discovered that it did not have enough regiments for its multiple taskings. The military became politicized and American foreign policy became a military prisoner, not to smart when seeking international legitimacy and allies.
When an earthquake struck Haiti (011210) America was presented with another opportunity to regain some of the eroded standing. Here was a purely humanitarian crisis just off the American shore and the United States had experienced crisis teams but instead its military staged an invasion. The military took over Haiti’s air space and refused landings of other countries’ assistance. Among them were, international evacuations flights, a complete field hospital “but it was French”, Brazil’s support for it own forces stationed in Haiti. and denied support for third country nationals. The American Navy had a fleet off shore with medical capabilities but its helicopters were not allowed to pickup casualties. The Air Force did make a token bomb run on survivors with water and rations in the same manner that failed in Afghanistan. Not very smart applications of power for a nation facing increasing power competition.
Immense international pressure was brought on military arrogance and the international community finally wrestled control of humanitarian efforts. The administration is faced with the embarrassment of apologizing to Haitians and insults to others. It is time to purge the Bush hard-liners from the military and employ some foreign policy smarts.
The truth however was that the Soviet collapse was not the result of an American military victory but rather the collapse of Soviet central planning economic model. One that failed to adapt to a new generation of Russians demanding their piece of the pie.
In 2003 political scientist Joseph Nye coined the term “Smart Power” as a counter to advocates of Soft Power and Hard Power. A country’s soft power includes its culture; values and policies, however it depends on the perceptions of other states that the culture and values are attractive and policies are consistently and legitimate. Hard power is more easily understood as overwhelming force applied freely. Smart power requires intuitive analysis of issues and alternative courses, which assist policy makers to align tactics with objectives for more effective strategies.
Bush, ‘the younger’, and his entourage counted regiments concluding that the American strategy should only be applications of hard power. In the wake of 911 the United States had the opportunity to achieve most of its international objectives through smart power. Instead the Bush administration unilaterally deployed hard power while demanding other states get on board or become targets. Oil producers and religions were already on the target list. European and Asian states were insulted, cooperation and support dried up and the administration discovered that it did not have enough regiments for its multiple taskings. The military became politicized and American foreign policy became a military prisoner, not to smart when seeking international legitimacy and allies.
When an earthquake struck Haiti (011210) America was presented with another opportunity to regain some of the eroded standing. Here was a purely humanitarian crisis just off the American shore and the United States had experienced crisis teams but instead its military staged an invasion. The military took over Haiti’s air space and refused landings of other countries’ assistance. Among them were, international evacuations flights, a complete field hospital “but it was French”, Brazil’s support for it own forces stationed in Haiti. and denied support for third country nationals. The American Navy had a fleet off shore with medical capabilities but its helicopters were not allowed to pickup casualties. The Air Force did make a token bomb run on survivors with water and rations in the same manner that failed in Afghanistan. Not very smart applications of power for a nation facing increasing power competition.
Immense international pressure was brought on military arrogance and the international community finally wrestled control of humanitarian efforts. The administration is faced with the embarrassment of apologizing to Haitians and insults to others. It is time to purge the Bush hard-liners from the military and employ some foreign policy smarts.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
New kid on the block 011610
The measures of great power have always evolved. The Romans gained power status by the Roman sword but became a great power by its engineering and legal innovations. England became a power by naval architecture, becoming great on mercantilism and industrialization. America rode industrial innovations to power becoming great on its economic stability. There is a common thread of great powers leveraging past examples to become dominant powers within a single generation.
Great powers aren’t defeated they merely decline in importance to eventual irrelevance. They decline because they point to their glory and fail to adapt to changing measures of power. There is a power queue of young and energetic nations on the doorstep of greatness.
China is a leading new kid on the block. When the American economy melted down China stepped in to take up some of the slack buying more American paper. This was not altruism; China already held too much American debt to allow that country to free-fall. When the economy improves expectations are that China will slowly dump American bonds. China will continue to use its surplus wealth to acquire interest in North American resource suppliers. In recent years China has been buying interest in resource rich countries either directly or by making national loans in developing countries, with resources serving as collateral. It now has extensive energy commitments from its western boarder through central Asian the Middle East and across Africa and even drilling right into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil is not the only resource China is acquiring; Peruvian copper, Congolese cobalt and Canadian aluminum, which now contributes to Chinese industrial growth.
In addition to products, China is exporting engineering expertise and its own formula for economic development. Leveraging its growing economic strength China is forming partnership deals in developing countries that advances native technology while cementing friendships and markets for Chinese products. China is also expanding its market research in Asia and producing products surrounding countries want. Countering American “Buy America” clauses in stimulus packages, China now has 56 free trade agreements with Asian countries making a powerful trading bloc. In the past Asian market was the West, increasingly intertwined Asian industry is now producing for Asian markets. Companies in countries left out of these trade pacts (the west) could face competitive disadvantages when trying to tap into fast-growing Asian markets.
China, once a victim great power exploitation has learned its lessons well. Instead of colonial extortion from developing countries China seeks cooperative agreements that mutually aid development as its economy expands, producing another stable world currency. The western concept of “win, win” situation is we can’t lose; for Asians “win, win” means everyone wins. The United States can’t fight this trend but it can adapt to new players and cooperative agreements. The failure to change with the times is the trapdoor to darkness and time is short.
Great powers aren’t defeated they merely decline in importance to eventual irrelevance. They decline because they point to their glory and fail to adapt to changing measures of power. There is a power queue of young and energetic nations on the doorstep of greatness.
China is a leading new kid on the block. When the American economy melted down China stepped in to take up some of the slack buying more American paper. This was not altruism; China already held too much American debt to allow that country to free-fall. When the economy improves expectations are that China will slowly dump American bonds. China will continue to use its surplus wealth to acquire interest in North American resource suppliers. In recent years China has been buying interest in resource rich countries either directly or by making national loans in developing countries, with resources serving as collateral. It now has extensive energy commitments from its western boarder through central Asian the Middle East and across Africa and even drilling right into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil is not the only resource China is acquiring; Peruvian copper, Congolese cobalt and Canadian aluminum, which now contributes to Chinese industrial growth.
In addition to products, China is exporting engineering expertise and its own formula for economic development. Leveraging its growing economic strength China is forming partnership deals in developing countries that advances native technology while cementing friendships and markets for Chinese products. China is also expanding its market research in Asia and producing products surrounding countries want. Countering American “Buy America” clauses in stimulus packages, China now has 56 free trade agreements with Asian countries making a powerful trading bloc. In the past Asian market was the West, increasingly intertwined Asian industry is now producing for Asian markets. Companies in countries left out of these trade pacts (the west) could face competitive disadvantages when trying to tap into fast-growing Asian markets.
China, once a victim great power exploitation has learned its lessons well. Instead of colonial extortion from developing countries China seeks cooperative agreements that mutually aid development as its economy expands, producing another stable world currency. The western concept of “win, win” situation is we can’t lose; for Asians “win, win” means everyone wins. The United States can’t fight this trend but it can adapt to new players and cooperative agreements. The failure to change with the times is the trapdoor to darkness and time is short.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
All volunteers 011410
There is an ancient military axiom so old that its origins are lost in pre-history. The axiom was reinforced during the conscriptions of the military built ups of World War Two when millions of veterans carved the axiom in stone for future generations, “NEVER VOLUNTEER.”
Despite this, back in the good old days of conscripted soldiers there were always plenty of volunteers for cushy jobs, who found themselves peeling potatoes or moving earth with a shovel. Draftees also volunteered in the thousands for the most dangerous assignments, serving with great distinction and often sacrificing themselves for their flags.
The American military has now been an all-volunteer service for almost 40 years. The administration had every reason to expect a rush of officer volunteers to become regional experts on Afghanistan when it began to revise the war strategy. The idea was to establish a corps of 912 from the four armed services to bolster the war effort with specialist who would consider the environment and cultures of Afghanistan and Pakistan for a prolonged conflict. In almost six months the call for volunteers has only persuaded 172 to sign up. Of these the Joint Chiefs complained that the services are not providing their “best and brightest.” The militaries’ spin doctors have produced a number of excuses for the low turnout. But General McChrystal is quoted as saying that the military must be willing to break traditional career models, meaning breaking the system that has evolved in recent years.
Following the Vietnam debacle the militaries’ “upward mobile” began to transition from “do or die” assignments to those with career political advantages. During the Rumsfeld era, politically correct team players received preferential promotions for supporting loud fictions. Soldiers learned the value of spin and equivocation as well as the danger of assignments to losing or dead-end programs. Their idea of self-interest is to get their ticket punched without sticking around long enough to be linked to negative outcomes.
It appears that after nine years the upward mobile have identified Afghanistan as a career negative. For nine years the Rumsfeld socialized military stated that it does not need to consult Afghans because they will do as they are told. The new strategy of asking the Afghans about Afghanistan appears to be military rocket science. The career minded may well be right Afghanistan is a career killer because it is to little to late. The administration wants to end the war in the shortest possible time while the polmil wants to keep it going as long as possible. After all it is the only war they have going.
While the Afghans have long memories of military missteps, the military have an even longer memory of the perils of volunteering. In the end the military will again volunteer soldiers without influence to fill the positions while the polmil’s “best and brightest” finagle plum assignments out of the line of responsibility and fire.
###
Thus far, the Army has provided 69 volunteers of the 363 positions it has been assigned to fill; the Navy 30 of 183 jobs; the Air Force 45 of 225 positions; the Marines 19 of 63 slots, according to a Pentagon tally.
Despite this, back in the good old days of conscripted soldiers there were always plenty of volunteers for cushy jobs, who found themselves peeling potatoes or moving earth with a shovel. Draftees also volunteered in the thousands for the most dangerous assignments, serving with great distinction and often sacrificing themselves for their flags.
The American military has now been an all-volunteer service for almost 40 years. The administration had every reason to expect a rush of officer volunteers to become regional experts on Afghanistan when it began to revise the war strategy. The idea was to establish a corps of 912 from the four armed services to bolster the war effort with specialist who would consider the environment and cultures of Afghanistan and Pakistan for a prolonged conflict. In almost six months the call for volunteers has only persuaded 172 to sign up. Of these the Joint Chiefs complained that the services are not providing their “best and brightest.” The militaries’ spin doctors have produced a number of excuses for the low turnout. But General McChrystal is quoted as saying that the military must be willing to break traditional career models, meaning breaking the system that has evolved in recent years.
Following the Vietnam debacle the militaries’ “upward mobile” began to transition from “do or die” assignments to those with career political advantages. During the Rumsfeld era, politically correct team players received preferential promotions for supporting loud fictions. Soldiers learned the value of spin and equivocation as well as the danger of assignments to losing or dead-end programs. Their idea of self-interest is to get their ticket punched without sticking around long enough to be linked to negative outcomes.
It appears that after nine years the upward mobile have identified Afghanistan as a career negative. For nine years the Rumsfeld socialized military stated that it does not need to consult Afghans because they will do as they are told. The new strategy of asking the Afghans about Afghanistan appears to be military rocket science. The career minded may well be right Afghanistan is a career killer because it is to little to late. The administration wants to end the war in the shortest possible time while the polmil wants to keep it going as long as possible. After all it is the only war they have going.
While the Afghans have long memories of military missteps, the military have an even longer memory of the perils of volunteering. In the end the military will again volunteer soldiers without influence to fill the positions while the polmil’s “best and brightest” finagle plum assignments out of the line of responsibility and fire.
###
Thus far, the Army has provided 69 volunteers of the 363 positions it has been assigned to fill; the Navy 30 of 183 jobs; the Air Force 45 of 225 positions; the Marines 19 of 63 slots, according to a Pentagon tally.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Evolutions 010610
Ignoring the religious controversies over Darwin’s evolution theories, historical evolution exists. Historical evolution is alive in the minds of a few remaining centenarians who saw the birth of the 20th century but the full evolution of the 20th century has millions of living witnesses.
One major engine of 20th century evolution was war. The century suffered from three world wars (one, two and cold) and innumerable border conflicts, ethnic battles and very uncivil wars. World Wars One and Two unleashed technical innovations that changed how people interact. They also unleashed the aspirations of the world’s ignored and oppressed people. The peoples’ evolution was movements to nationalism and freedom from colonial masters. At the end of World War One all the great nationalist leaders of the century were alive and campaigning for justice.
There were liberal movements emerging around the world seeking a promised “Self Determination.” To win allies the great powers promised much liberalization but on victory their interests quickly embraced conservatism. The liberals wanted change; the conservative wanted the status quo. Each movement was ripped by internal struggles with their “Ultras.” Ultra liberals demanded ever more and more radical change, while the ultra conservatives sought a return to the glory of supposed idealize pasts that never really existed. Liberals and conservatives can negotiate, the ultra movements will never agree. The seeds were sown for the century’s conflicts as old ultra conservatives sought to return the world to 19th century colonial empires.
Afghanistan again ejected the British and Iraq rejected them in 27 gaining independence in 32. From the Pacific to the Atlantic the liberal have-nots struggled with the conservative haves. Into this mix World War Two was rocket science, linking the darkest reaches of the planet with a network of ideas, while leaving piles of technology and weapons. The conservatives were bankrupt both in money and ideas while the liberals marched to new drums. The 19th century was dead and the 20th had evolved. Long suppressed nationalist wars erupted, and the conservative Cold War antagonists chose up sides fighting very hot proxy campaigns. Evolution of ideas is not pretty nor do all accept change. Faith also evolved but is resented by the conservative faithful.
The ultra liberal ideas of the 20th century, which brought nationalism and freedom, have proven too much to fast for faithful ultra conservatives. They seek to reverse evolution returning to a simpler era where ideas can’t challenge their values. Religious fundamentalists romanticize a view of centuries’ pasts but the genie is out of the bottle. The past was not as idealized as imagined and a trip back is one of certain disappointment.
Rather than engage in ideological warfare, liberals and conservatives must engage in meaningful evolutionary dialogue of cooperation leading to peace. Failure to do so in today’s already integrated world will lead to brutal sectarian warfare spawning a global Dark Age.
One major engine of 20th century evolution was war. The century suffered from three world wars (one, two and cold) and innumerable border conflicts, ethnic battles and very uncivil wars. World Wars One and Two unleashed technical innovations that changed how people interact. They also unleashed the aspirations of the world’s ignored and oppressed people. The peoples’ evolution was movements to nationalism and freedom from colonial masters. At the end of World War One all the great nationalist leaders of the century were alive and campaigning for justice.
There were liberal movements emerging around the world seeking a promised “Self Determination.” To win allies the great powers promised much liberalization but on victory their interests quickly embraced conservatism. The liberals wanted change; the conservative wanted the status quo. Each movement was ripped by internal struggles with their “Ultras.” Ultra liberals demanded ever more and more radical change, while the ultra conservatives sought a return to the glory of supposed idealize pasts that never really existed. Liberals and conservatives can negotiate, the ultra movements will never agree. The seeds were sown for the century’s conflicts as old ultra conservatives sought to return the world to 19th century colonial empires.
Afghanistan again ejected the British and Iraq rejected them in 27 gaining independence in 32. From the Pacific to the Atlantic the liberal have-nots struggled with the conservative haves. Into this mix World War Two was rocket science, linking the darkest reaches of the planet with a network of ideas, while leaving piles of technology and weapons. The conservatives were bankrupt both in money and ideas while the liberals marched to new drums. The 19th century was dead and the 20th had evolved. Long suppressed nationalist wars erupted, and the conservative Cold War antagonists chose up sides fighting very hot proxy campaigns. Evolution of ideas is not pretty nor do all accept change. Faith also evolved but is resented by the conservative faithful.
The ultra liberal ideas of the 20th century, which brought nationalism and freedom, have proven too much to fast for faithful ultra conservatives. They seek to reverse evolution returning to a simpler era where ideas can’t challenge their values. Religious fundamentalists romanticize a view of centuries’ pasts but the genie is out of the bottle. The past was not as idealized as imagined and a trip back is one of certain disappointment.
Rather than engage in ideological warfare, liberals and conservatives must engage in meaningful evolutionary dialogue of cooperation leading to peace. Failure to do so in today’s already integrated world will lead to brutal sectarian warfare spawning a global Dark Age.
Monday, January 11, 2010
New Year 010110
Another decade has passed into history with pundits promising a bright future for the New Year. The reality however is that the past’s unexploded time bombs are one year closer to detonation.
The polar caps are melting, the seas are rising and the earth is becoming hotter. Politicians called a conference, posed for pictures and declared “satisfactory” results. While the seas are deeper they are being fished to barren extinction, farmlands are becoming deserts and forests are turning into urban developments. Energy demands as well as costs are rising as fossil fuel reserves decline. Waste and pollution blankets the globe as people migrate from the land to urban mega centers that demand more resources and produce more pollution. Resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and clean water in those urban centers is in danger of rationing.
Politicians return home, reassuring their publics that a solution is in hand and action will be taken. They then turn problems over to technocrats and return to electioneering. The technocrats have heard it all before, so it is business as usual. They begin to update an action plan for the next administration. Some honestly don’t believe a crisis, any crisis, is a crisis. Others think the situation is unavoidable so why exhaust themselves pursuing placebo proclamations. They believe in their exceptionalism and any crisis will only impact those of lessor worth. The reality is they lack the capacity to adapt and are paralyzed by self-doubts, falling back on collective irresponsibility of anonymous no action.
Most of tomorrow’s explosions are the result of bombs planted by innovations and development of the 19th and 20th century. During that era developed states made many wasteful environmental missteps in their rush to greatness. People fueled the need to grow and grow quickly. Today the populations of great states are aging out of power competition as young populations begin to reach for their own golden power ring.
Conservative estimates are that by mid-century the world population will be over nine billion people. That number hides a growing imbalance of declining population in developed nations and explosive growth in developing states. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America the under 20 year olds form 25 to 45 percent of present populations. These young people are just entering their child bearing and creative years. The old decaying powers serve as a model for their needs and desires as they “want it now” not considering that this attitude planted the seeds of their own future destruction.
Developing states would do well to study the models of the past as a precaution against unplanned development. The great powers of the 21st century will be those that devise innovative ways to do more with less while satisfying the desires of accelerating demands. Innovation must not only solve development challenges but also defuse the environmental bombs left by the great powers of the past.
The polar caps are melting, the seas are rising and the earth is becoming hotter. Politicians called a conference, posed for pictures and declared “satisfactory” results. While the seas are deeper they are being fished to barren extinction, farmlands are becoming deserts and forests are turning into urban developments. Energy demands as well as costs are rising as fossil fuel reserves decline. Waste and pollution blankets the globe as people migrate from the land to urban mega centers that demand more resources and produce more pollution. Resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and clean water in those urban centers is in danger of rationing.
Politicians return home, reassuring their publics that a solution is in hand and action will be taken. They then turn problems over to technocrats and return to electioneering. The technocrats have heard it all before, so it is business as usual. They begin to update an action plan for the next administration. Some honestly don’t believe a crisis, any crisis, is a crisis. Others think the situation is unavoidable so why exhaust themselves pursuing placebo proclamations. They believe in their exceptionalism and any crisis will only impact those of lessor worth. The reality is they lack the capacity to adapt and are paralyzed by self-doubts, falling back on collective irresponsibility of anonymous no action.
Most of tomorrow’s explosions are the result of bombs planted by innovations and development of the 19th and 20th century. During that era developed states made many wasteful environmental missteps in their rush to greatness. People fueled the need to grow and grow quickly. Today the populations of great states are aging out of power competition as young populations begin to reach for their own golden power ring.
Conservative estimates are that by mid-century the world population will be over nine billion people. That number hides a growing imbalance of declining population in developed nations and explosive growth in developing states. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America the under 20 year olds form 25 to 45 percent of present populations. These young people are just entering their child bearing and creative years. The old decaying powers serve as a model for their needs and desires as they “want it now” not considering that this attitude planted the seeds of their own future destruction.
Developing states would do well to study the models of the past as a precaution against unplanned development. The great powers of the 21st century will be those that devise innovative ways to do more with less while satisfying the desires of accelerating demands. Innovation must not only solve development challenges but also defuse the environmental bombs left by the great powers of the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)